Sen. John Andrews: Know Our Enemy or Lose Our Liberty | Frontpage Mag

Addressing the defense of religious freedom at the 2019 Western Conservative Summit in Colorado.


Editors’ note: Former Sen. John Andrews launched the annual Western Conservative Summit for Colorado Christian University in 2010 and chaired it for the next five years. Over 2,000 delegates from Colorado and across the country attended this year. As Sen. Andrews noted at “It was my honor on Friday evening, July 12, to address the Western Conservative Summit in Denver, the tenth renewal of what has become the largest annual rally on the right outside Washington DC. In terms of the gravity of the subject matter, I regard this as the most important speech I’ve ever given in fifty years in public life. My prepared remarks were as follows.”

I love the Summit theme for 2019: “Defending Religious Freedom and America’s First Amendment.”

It challenges us to begin at the very beginning and realize that unless America is a nation under God, we’re not a nation at all.

Unless every American is free to honor God as conscience may guide— and to obey God in the public square as long as no one else is harmed—unless we are free in that precious way, we’re not free at all

Someone may say, Wait a minute, you’re going too far. What about political freedom? What about economic freedom? Even without religious freedom, you still have those.

No, you don’t.  Not really.  If government can dictate your belief system, with earthly rulers standing between you and your Creator, government owns you.

If Caesar can enslave your soul, the enslavement of your body and the confiscation of your belongings are just a matter of time.

Thought Control

Political freedom and economic freedom are a mere illusion if government can dictate your belief system.

Because when thought control takes over, there is nothing to stop the government from expanding all its other forms of control more and more—always for your own good, of course—until the government becomes God.

At which point your humanity has been cancelled. You’re left with the brutish existence of those barnyard animals in Orwell’s Animal Farm—tyrannized over by swine.

There’s a reason the First Amendment is first in our Constitution’s magnificent Bill of Rights.

To choose one’s own belief system and to live accordingly, so long as no one else is harmed, is the very essence of liberty and limited government.  Nothing matters more.

Revelation and Victimization

In the American experience, two and a half centuries and counting, threats to religious freedom have taken two forms—revelation in the earlier period—and victimization today.

By revelation I mean the command from above, the claim that one group has a pipeline to God and other groups don’t.

After Europe’s horrific religious wars, our Founders wisely made government stand back and stay neutral between those competing claims of revelation. Overall that has worked well.

But now in the 21st century we are engulfed in the culture of victimization—the wound from within—the tyranny of hurt feelings, the vengeful claims of group injustices and group paybacks, the identity grievance blame game.

Anyone’s wound from within now matters more than anyone else’s command from above.  So we’re told.

** If an order of nuns disagrees with those to whom abortion has become a virtual sacrament, haul them into court.

** If the cross on a roadside war memorial offends a passing atheist, have it bulldozed.

Fortunately, so far, our courts have invoked the First Amendment to protect those nuns — that cross.

But the identity grievances keep multiplying. The floodtide of victimization keeps rising.  How long will the dike hold?

Supreme Court appointments matter.  Elections matter.  The culture matters.  Moral and spiritual renewal matters—one family, one church, one community at a time.

We need to help our non-religious neighbors wake up and see that the tyrannous temptation of thought control will eventually endanger them—as much as it endangers any Christian or Jew or Hindu or Buddhist.

That’s what freedom of religion, freedom of belief, freedom of conscience actually means.

What Freedom of Religion is Not

Now let’s talk about what freedom of religion does NOT mean. I will speak with tough love. From the heart. With no animosity or ill will toward any person. Please hear me carefully.

Suppose somebody originated a belief system that claimed exclusive right to revelation, the command from above—and harnessed that aggressive claim to a burning sense of victimization, the wound from within. What a loose cannon that would be.

Suppose its claim of revelation included a totalitarian political and economic system, not subject to reformation, set forth in a holy book not subject to revision.

Suppose its legal scholars and clergy insisted the day is coming when that book must govern all mankind, on penalty of death to whoever would refuse to submit.

Suppose finally that this belief system had been around for over a thousand years— deepening its victim complex, its rage — reinforcing its unbending absolutism and its dreams of global conquest— until today it commands the allegiance of a quarter of the earth’s population on every part of the earth’s surface.

I’m talking about the belief system called Islam.

Submit or Die

It’s true we all know Muslims who are likable neighbors or capable co-workers.  Decent patriotic Americans who humbly love Allah. That’s not what I’m talking about.

I’m talking about this absolutist totalitarian worldview and political doctrine that demands everyone, everyone, you and me included, ultimately submit or die.

So here’s the hard question for all of us as freedom-loving Americans. Put it in terms of that bumper sticker, the one that says “Coexist.”

How can aggressive dominant Islam and its supreme law, Sharia, coexist with friendly tolerant America and its supreme law, the Constitution? I don’t honestly see how it can.

I don’t claim to know the way forward in this tremendous, tragic clash of civilizations.

But I do know this: The simplistic approach of just granting unconditional quote/unquote freedom of religion to a religion that doesn’t believe in freedom—and have no doubt, Islam does not—that approach is civilizational suicide.

Sharia vs. the Constitution

Don’t take it from me.  Read the Muslim Brotherhood’s takeover plan for an Islamic USA, already 50 years along, established as evidence in the Holy Land Foundation trial.

The shockingly well-connected Brotherhood and its lying propaganda arm, CAIR, are waging civilizational jihad to take us down from within by our own good-hearted impulse to live and let live, our own sense of fair play.

The answer is not a witch hunt. Not persecution. Not some kind of ban.  Not interfering with anyone’s belief system—provided it doesn’t interfere with ours.

But the answer is certainly not to just keep doing what we’re doing—that’s a formula for defeat. There’s a better way, there has to be.  As Justice Robert Jackson famously said, “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.”

If we in this generation don’t rouse ourselves and defeat the Muslim Brotherhood, our children’s generation will be worse off than Europe is today—and I don’t even want to think about our grandchildren’s generation.

I’m sure some of you will disagree with me. So will some other speakers this weekend.  They will tell you that a good and faithful Muslim can also be a good and faithful American.

Sorry, but I don’t see how.  Not when one holds Sharia law supreme, the Koran, the command from above—and the other holds the Constitution supreme.  Something has to give.

Two Enemies

We can all look back across the ten years of summits and recognize some changes in ourselves.  For me, I didn’t realize then what has become chillingly clear to me now.

America is in a war, a war to the death—and it’s not going well.

It’s largely a war of ideas right now, not violent, at least not yet.  Other than the occasional Antifa riot or jihadi massacre, the conflict so far is a battle for hearts and minds.

We can only win that battle if we summon the courage to name our enemies—two of them.  The name of one is Marx.  The name of the other is Mohammed.

Ideology of Perpetual War

Maybe their intentions were good. Who knows? But their legacy is not good. It’s a legacy of righteous ruthless violence, justified by an ideology of perpetual war.

** For the forces of Marx, that means a war of the oppressed against the oppressors, defined by the victim status of their identity or class.

** For the forces of Mohammed, that means a war of the believers against the infidels, demanding that everyone on earth must eventually either submit to Sharia law or die.

Does it give you a chill to hear me indict Mohammed for a millennium of immiseration, oppression, brutality, and slaughter?  Do you worry for my safety, blaspheming the Prophet this way?

I thank you for your concern, but you just proved my point. No one in the USA should have to fear violent reprisals for voicing his belief system.  That’s why we have a First Amendment.

We Don’t Bow to That

So I ask you to join me in naming our enemies. Their followers will howl with indignation, but secretly they will respect us more.

We Americans, the land of the free, have already been targeted as their enemies, after all.  When we drop the pretense and get real, we merely return the compliment.

Join me in calling these deadly ideologies what they are, every time their victim rhetoric raises its hateful head.

“That’s Marx talking,” we should say. Or—“That’s Mohammed talking.”

Speak out and say, “We don’t buy that. We don’t bow to that. We don’t compromise with that.  We don’t split the difference with that.  We don’t make concessions to that.”

We don’t use that guilt-tripping vocabulary. So-called political correctness is Marxist brainwashing. We scorn it.

We don’t accept that accusatory premise, that lie. So-called Islamophobia is Mohammed’s intellectual bullying, emotional blackmail to silence us. We spurn it.

They Hate Religious Freedom

Again, don’t take my word for it.  Read the work of David Horowitz—Frank Gaffney—John Guandolo. The work of Robert Spencer or Pamela Geller. All good friends of CCU.

Do a web search for Ami Horowitz and his devastating new video about the Muslim Brotherhood.

Or simply look at a map of the world and notice which countries have the least religious freedom.

It’s countries that follow Marx, such as China and North Korea and Cuba and Venezuela.

Or countries that follow Mohammed, such as Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, Egypt or Turkey.

The more that Marx’s ideas and Mohammed’s ideas take hold here, the more our religious freedom is endangered.

Those ideas simply do not mix with the ideas of Jefferson and Adams and Lincoln.  It’s oil and water.  There’s no meeting each other halfway.

** The forces of Marx want to make the government everyone’s God.

** The forces of Mohammed want to make their God everyone’s government.

Neither is in any way acceptable to the American way of life.

We Can Defeat Them

Can we meet and defeat the existential threat they pose to this sweet land of liberty?  Absolutely we can.

It has only been our softness, our sentimentality, our self-absorption that ever allowed them to make the inroads they have.

It’s time to rise up and say enough of that lethargy.  It’s time to rally to the flag whether Nike and Kaepernick like it not.

Let the rebirth begin right here, right now, at Western Conservative Summit 2019.  I couldn’t be more proud to be standing alongside each and every one of you in this fight.

God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

Source: Sen. John Andrews: Know Our Enemy or Lose Our Liberty | Frontpage Mag

Posted in Constitution, First Amendment, Islam, Muslim Brotherhood, Sharia law | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

University of Missouri sued for violating conservative donor’s mandate | The College Fix

The University of Missouri faces a multi-million dollar lawsuit for allegedly not adhering to the requirements of a conservative donor’s gift.

In 2002, financier Sherlock Hibbs gave the school $5 million with the proviso that the money “fund six professorships at the Trulaske College of Business to be filled by ‘dedicated and articulate disciple[s] of the Ludwig von Mises (Austrian) School of Economics.’”

According to RealClear Politicsto enforce his wishes Hibbs had Mizzou certify every four years “to the satisfaction” of Hillsdale College that it was in compliance. If it was deemed Mizzou had breached the agreement, the remaining monies would go to Hillsdale.

As per his will, the noted economist von Mises bequeathed his personal library to Hillsdale.

According to former Missouri governor (and Mizzou graduate) Jay Nixon, “Missouri University never embraced Mr. Hibbs’ intent, and consequently students aren’t getting the exposure to intellectual philosophies necessary for broad-based education.” Nixon is leading Hillsdale’s lawsuit.


Source: University of Missouri sued for violating conservative donor’s mandate | The College Fix

Posted in economics, education | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The penis story that didn’t stand up

On May 19th last, two researchers under the names Jamie Lindsayand Peter Boyle, published a hoax gender studies paper, entitled The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct, in the peer-reviewed, pay-to-publish social science journal Cogent Social Sciences. The paper was written in the jargon typical of gender studies papers but was deliberately constructed to be completely, even comically, nonsensical. The authors revealed the hoax in the magazine SkepticCogent Social Sciences withdrew the paper but the fact that this paper was so easily published should seriously concern those who work in the gender studies field.

The real identities of the two authors are Dr Peter Boghossian, Department of Philosophy, Portland State University, and Dr James Lindsay, a mathematician and author of four books. The paper was submitted to Cogent Social Sciences from a fictitious group called “The Southeast Independent Social Research Group”.

The abstract of the paper, the first thing a reviewer would read, should have sounded alarm bells. It begins: “Anatomical penises may exist, but as pre-operative transgendered women also have anatomical penises, the penis vis-a-viz maleness is an incoherent construct. We argue that the conceptual penis is better understood, not as an anatomical organ, but as a social construct isomorphic to performative toxic masculinity.”

The authors go on to absurdly relate the conceptual penis to climate change: “Toxic hyper-masculinity derives its significance directly from the conceptual penis and applies itself to supporting neo-capitalistic materialism, which is a fundamental driver of climate change, especially in the rampant use of carbon emitting fossil fuel technologies and careless domination of virgin natural environments.”

In their Sceptic magazine article, the authors describe how they laced the article with impenetrable jargon and deliberately made it nonsensical. “We read it (the paper) carefully to ensure it didn’t say anything meaningful, and as neither of us could determine what it is actually about, we deemed it a success.”

The purpose of the hoax was to make a comment on gender studies. “We wrote an absurd paper loosely composed in the style of post-structuralist discursive gender theory. The paper was ridiculous by intention, essentially arguing that penises shouldn’t be thought of as male genital organs but as damaging social constructions. We made no attempt to find out what “post-structuralist discursive gender theory” actually means. We assumed that if we were merely clear in our moral implications that maleness is intrinsically bad and that the penis is somehow at the root of it, we would get the paper published in a respectable journal.” (from the Skeptic article).

This Cogent Social Sciences paper follows in the tradition started by New York University physicist Alan Sokal in 1996. Sokal was critical of much social science research and to illustrate his point he composed a social science paper using the conventional trendy jargon but making no sense. He wanted to see if a reputable humanities journal would “publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good, and (b) it flattered the editors’ ideological preconceptions”.

Sokal’s hoax paper was published in the journal Social Text in 1996. This latest Cogent Social Sciences hoax indicates that little has changed since 1996 in the standards used to judge research in social science. Of course it is only fair to point out that hoax scientific papers have also been published in other fields, eg biology.

Two issues must be considered here; firstly, the ease with which papers can now be published in lower-tier pay-to-publish journals and secondly, the nature of gender studies itself. On the first point, although Cogent Social Sciences is a pay-to-publish journal, it is also peer reviewed. But, what sort of peer-review? This paper should never have survived even a minimally-competent review.

On the second point, gender studies is heavily influenced by the loose philosophy of postmodernism and is very susceptible to bias. Postmodernism is sceptical of reason, questions the scientific assumption of objective natural reality and claims that scientific “truths” belong to larger cultural frames. In the words of Boghassian and Lindsay, “this hoax was rooted in moral and political biases masquerading as rigorous academic theory . . . As we see it, gender studies in its current form needs to do some serious house-cleaning.”

William Reville is an emeritus professor of Biochemistry at UCC.

Source: The penis story that didn’t stand up

Posted in multiculturalism, neoliberals, political correctness, social, Victim Culture | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Your Metadata Taken by the NSA Will Now be Shared With All Agencies: The Same Data They ‘Haven’t’ Been Collecting for Years | Humans Are Free

In recent years this country has undergone some massive shifts regarding the average American’s personal privacy.

by Ryan Cristian

Primarily, after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration began an effort to remove any barriers that impede different parts of the government from working closely and sharing information, primarily in regards to terrorism, yet the reach has gone far beyond that restriction.

Following 9/11, the so-called “sneak-and-peak” provision of the Patriot Act was claimed to only be used in instances of national security or terrorism.

However, since its inception, the Patriot Act and its ambiguously worded intentions, have allowed for Americans’ data to be collected on a massive scale that have little to no relevance in regards to national security or terrorism.

In fact, it was revealed that the provision was overwhelmingly used in narcotics cases, which are clearly not a matter of national security.

Despite the government’s initial insistence that this was not happening, in 2013 it was revealed, based on documents leaked by the former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden, that the NSA had tapped into links connecting Google’s and Yahoo’s data centers overseas and collected millions of personal records a day from the servers.

Now, despite this past revelation, and the fact that the NSA publicly announced that they were ending the very data-mining program that is now being expanded, the New York Times reports that NSA data will now be shared with other members of the Alphabet Mafia, such as the FBI or CIA, without first applying any screens for privacy.

It could be considered that at least now the secret data-sharing and spying on the American public is being publicly acknowledged and done in the open, instead of being carried out in their typical clandestine manner.

Yet there is something quite foreboding about the fact that the government no longer feels the need to hide this gross intrusion and violation of Americans’ rights. The Drug Enforcement Administration and the IRS have been getting information from the NSA for years now, and without a warrant.

The ACLU of Massachusetts blog Privacy SOS explains why this is important:

“What does this rule change mean for you? In short, domestic law enforcement officials now have access to huge troves of American communications, obtained without warrants, that they can use to put people in cages.

“FBI agents don’t need to have any “national security” related reason to plug your name, email address, phone number, or other “selector” into the NSA’s gargantuan data trove. They can simply poke around in your private information in the course of totally routine investigations.

“And if they find something that suggests, say, involvement in illegal drug activity, they can send that information to local or state police. That means information the NSA collects for purposes of so-called “national security” will be used by police to lock up ordinary Americans for routine crimes.

“And we don’t have to guess who’s going to suffer this unconstitutional indignity the most brutally. It’ll be Black, Brown, poor, immigrant, Muslim, and dissident Americans: the same people who are always targeted by law enforcement for extra “special” attention.”

This essentially confirms what most “conspiracy theorists” have thought for some time. Yet, as with most cases of this type, the theorists were either disregarded or laughed at until the reality hit the docile public square in the mouth.

This happens typically in the form of a deceptively agreeable Fox News story (or insert your most hated mainstream outlet here) that makes it seem as if it’s just another recap on something that has “been going on openly for years” with only national security in mind of course; and the only reason the viewer didn’t know about it was because they weren’t up on their “current events.”

When in reality, their actions are not only unconstitutional, but illegal, and only being revealed in the first place because they were caught breaking the law.

As no one ever seems to be held accountable for the egregious breaches of trust and constitutional law that have seemed to become common practice in recent years, it has become apparent that these men operate on a completely different level with their own personal set of rules that can clearly can be disregard at will.

“Before we allow them to spread that information further in the government, we need to have a serious conversation about how to protect Americans’ information,” said Alexander Abdo, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer.

The move to take this secretive operation and create circumstances and laws to allow for it to be done openly, has been under development since 2008.

This obvious violation of the Constitution, where stolen information can be used to whatever end they see fit, was initiated by President George W. Bush.

Bush set the change in motion through a little-noticed line in a 2008 executive order, and the Obama administration has been quietly developing a framework for how to carry it out since taking office in 2009.

Robert S. Litt, the general counsel in the office of the Director of National Intelligence, said that the administration had developed and was fine-tuning what is now a 21-page draft set of procedures to permit the sharing of American’s personal data.

When asked if the public could have access to the current draft of the proposed procedures the office spokesman responded:

“Once these procedures are final and approved, they will be made public to the extent consistent with national security,” Mr. Hale said.

“It would be premature to draw conclusions about what the procedures will provide or authorize until they are finalized.”

As much as that may seem a logical answer, national security and all, at what stage of this nation’s development did the people lose their right to have their voices heard on matters that directly affect their lives?

The executive branch can apparently change its own rules without first going through Congress or a judge because the data comes from methods of surveillance that lawmakers failed to include in the main law that governs wiretapping; otherwise known as FISA.

This should serve to remind Americans that as the power of the Federal government continues to grow, the further away this nation’s falls from its founding ideals; and the closer it grows to the very thing it was founded to prevent.

Read: It’s Official: NSA Data Will be Used for Domestic Policing that Has Nothing to Do With Terrorism

History has shown that any power granted to the Federal government will inevitable be used wherever they see fit, despite any original restrictions.

“Extraordinary powers we grant government in wartime rarely go away once the war is over. And, of course, the nifty thing for government agencies about a ‘war on terrorism’ is that it’s a war that will never formally end.”  Radley Balko, The Washington Post

Source: Your Metadata Taken by the NSA Will Now be Shared With All Agencies: The Same Data They ‘Haven’t’ Been Collecting for Years | Humans Are Free

Posted in Deep State | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Brzezinski: ‘It’s Infinitely Easier to Kill than Control a Million People’ | Humans Are Free

Obama’s handler Zbigniew Brzezinski, a big-time New World Order globalist insider, put the matter rather bluntly by asserting that it was now harder to control, but easier to kill, a million people.

Specifically, he said that “new and old powers face” an unprecedented situation; the “lethality of their power is greater than ever”, but, sadly for the NWO globalists, their “capacity to impose control over the politically awakened masses of the world is at a historical low.”

Humanity’s consciousness is rising.

People are starting to get wise to the deception. The masses are resisting, not complying and fighting back, and this is exactly the kind of behavior that will make it difficult for the Controllers to implement their NWO agenda of a One World Government, backed by a one world currency and army, with a fully microchipped population.

Brzezinski said that “in earlier times, it was easier to control a million people, literally, than physically to kill a million people” while “today it is infinitely easier to kill a million people than to control a million people.”

To the NWO, who are heavily into eugenics and depopulation, it is no big deal to kill a million people.

Their plan as laid out in the Georgia Guidestones is to reduce the world’s population to 500 million, a much “manageable” amount.

In a world full of incredible darkness and corruption, this is something to be optimistic about. We the People have become aware enough that we are starting to end our slavery and escape being controlled and mastered.

May the journey towards fuller awareness continue. The human spirit of strength and love will ultimately prevail; but in the meantime there’s a lot of work to be done.

By Makia Freeman —

Source: Brzezinski: ‘It’s Infinitely Easier to Kill than Control a Million People’ | Humans Are Free

Posted in Globalism, New World Order | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Journalism’s Contribution to the Rise of Climate Alarm | Watts Up With That?

Guest Opinion by H. Sterling Burnett

As respect for journalists and their trustworthiness declines, mainstream media outlets, both print and television, are losing readers, subscribers, and viewers. By any measure, journalists aren’t trusted. In public opinion polls, the only professions consistently falling below journalists on their trustworthiness or ethical standards are politicians and used-car salespeople.

This doesn’t surprise me. For more than 20 years I’ve watched supposedly respected media outlets, with investigative journalists on staff, fail to accurately portray the debate surrounding claims human fossil fuel use is causing catastrophic climate change.

Journalism, until recently revered as the “fourth estate,” is supposed to promote objectivity and facts, with its practitioners serving as watchdogs against government corruption and malfeasance and big moneyed interests who collude with bureaucrats and politicians against the average Joe. Yet on the issue of climate change, the mainstream media long ago abandoned objectivity and their role as watchdog in favor being cheerleaders and promoters of conspiracy theories and ever more powerful, intrusive government.

Mainstream media outlets uncritically parrot and hype the most alarming claims and extreme scenarios, however unlikely, made in every report governments issue saying human-caused “climate extremes” are an “existential threat to humanity.” They report the claims as if they were revealed truths, given to them from on high. Foregoing journalism’s fundamental responsibility—similar to the responsibility scientists have—to question everything, to start from a position of skepticism and investigate the source of the claims, the assumptions built into them, whether they are supported by actual data, and whether other data contradicts them, the media instead proclaims, “Science has spoken. Humans are destroying the earth.”

There is no consensus that catastrophic climate change is happening and humans are causing it. Yet, due to lazy or biased reporters and editors not seeking out contrasting views or voices, and publishers and broadcasters not requiring their operations to maintain standards of fairness and veracity, the mainstream media uncritically presents a climate crisis as settled fact, as certain as that the world is round.

Thousands and indeed tens of thousands of scientists around the world refute all or part the claim there is an anthropogenic climate crisis, yet their voices are seldom heard, because the media is too busy promoting its favored lie to investigate alternative claims. Copious research, including hundreds of peer-reviewed studies and reports, is published each year casting doubts on various assumptions and projections made by the leaders of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and their fellow travelers deeply embedded in the bowels of government agencies such as NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

To be fair, no paper or any single reporter can cover climate every day, much less read and understand every study that gets published. Yet it is incumbent upon any honest news organization to seek out opposing points of view or countervailing evidence when the issue under discussion is claimed to be so critically important that major changes to public policy and wrenching changes to the economy, government institutions, and individual rights are being proposed to solve a particular problem, in this case the so-called climate crisis. This is where almost all mainstream media outlets fail in their duty. Some have openly foreclosed all debate, publicly announcing as an editorial policy they will no longer seek the views or publish articles from any scholar, no matter how qualified to speak about climate issues, who does not accept as fact humans are causing dangerous climate change.

Other outlets, while less open about their editorial bias, still downplay ongoing, lively debates about the causes, consequences, and possible responses to global warming, by portraying any climate skeptics whose existence they do deign to acknowledge as shills for industry or eccentrics, far outside of mainstream scientific opinion.

If journalists displayed just a modicum of intellectual curiosity, they could easily find peer-reviewed surveys of the literature, hundreds of skeptical studies gathered in a few sites, and letters signed by hundreds of scientists attesting to the falsity of one or more aspects of this three-part claim: the climate is changing and humans are the cause, on the whole the results will be unreservedly bad or catastrophic, and we must end the use of fossil fuels in the near future to prevent the destruction of human civilization and the environment.

The most prominent surveys of the literature are a series of peer-reviewed volumes produced by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Over the past decade, NIPCC has produced six technical reports discussing why the physical science does not support the claim humans are causing dangerous climate change, evidence that more carbon dioxide and a modestly warmer world might actually benefit human society and the environment, and evidence the development and use of fossil fuels, rather than being the bane of humankind’s existence, has instead been a boon for people and the planet.

If a journalist were to visit, the website of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, or, for example, he or she would find summaries of literally thousands of peer-reviewed papers that undermine one or multiple fundamental tenets, assumptions, sources of data, or projections behind the theory that humans are causing catastrophic climate change.

For instance, CO2 Science summarizes thousands of studies and experiments demonstrating increased carbon dioxide and modest warming tends to benefit plants, including staple crops critical to reducing hunger and malnutrition where it still exists around the world. And each year, the No Tricks Zone gathers on a single website hundreds of studies showing nature (including solar activity and large-scale oceanic patterns) is playing a bigger role in climate than human carbon dioxide emissions, and that assertions climate change is causing more or more-severe weather extremes are just not true.

Over the past decade, thousands of scientists have signed letters attesting to the fact claims made that humans are causing climate change are overstated at best and flatly mistaken at worst. Most recently, nearly 90 prominent Italian scientists wrote an open letter to their government, which states, in part,

Carbon dioxide is itself not a pollutant. On the contrary, it is indispensable for life on our planet.
… [T]he anthropogenic origin of global warming is an unproven hypothesis…. On the contrary, the scientific literature has increasingly highlighted the existence of a natural climatic variability that the models are not able to reproduce. This natural variability explains a substantial part of global warming observed since 1850. The anthropogenic responsibility for climate change observed in the last century is therefore unjustifiably exaggerated and catastrophic predictions are not realistic.

This follows an open letter from members of the American Physical Society to its ruling council, objecting to its national policy statement on climate change, which the signatories argued wrongly concluded human greenhouse gas emission were changing the climate. And an open letter, signed by nearly 150 international scientists, to then-UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon, stated,

Climate change science is in a period of “negative discovery”—the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is NOT settled.
Therefore, there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes.

The godfather of all letters objecting to climate change alarmism, the Oregon Petition Project, circulated by the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine and signed by more than 31,000 American scientists, including more than 9,000 with doctorates, states,

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.

It doesn’t take much effort to discover the truth about climate change. It is this: there exists a lively debate concerning the causes and consequences of ongoing climate change, and there is an even more active discussion and disagreement concerning whether policies like taxes on carbon dioxide, restrictions on fossil-fuel use, or geoengineering options proposed to mitigate or prevent further climate change would be effective or whether they would, in fact, cause more harm than good.

There are two sides to the climate debate, and broadcast, online, and print media should acknowledge this, highlight the debate, and let the informed public decide whether they believe humans are dooming the world through fossil fuel use, and what if anything to do about it, without being harangued, cajoled, or prodded by journalists and talking heads with a socialist agenda.

H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D. is a Heartland senior fellow on environmental policy and the managing editor of Environment & Climate News.

Source: Journalism’s Contribution to the Rise of Climate Alarm | Watts Up With That?

Posted in Global Warming/Climate Change | Tagged | Leave a comment

Where the Democrats are Trying to Take Us

Where the Democrats are Trying to Take Us

After watching the first two Democratic Party presidential debates last week, it has become crystal clear that there are embedded in this nation’s body politic prospective oligarchs who are overwhelming threats to the future of the nation.  The Democratic Party and its puppet masters are unquestionably a clear and present danger to the United States

The primary threat to this nation is not Donald Trump nor his supporters but an evolving autocratic oligarchy made up of the hierarchy of American Left, which includes elements of the political class, the mainstream media, the education establishment and, most recently, the titans of Silicon Valley.  Over the past 25 years, while the bulk of the Republican Party and the hierarchy of the conservative movement  myopically extended the hand of friendship, this cabal has been overwhelmingly successful in their stealth takeover of the Democratic Party, which is now the vehicle being utilized to manipulate the “unenlightened and inferior” masses with utopian promises and empty rhetoric.

They are doing so by promoting a so-called benevolent and just central government (i.e. socialism) dominated in perpetuity by the “enlightened” while promoting their brand of socialism and obliterating any opposition.  Additionally, their evolving position on abortion and euthanasia reflects the mindset that deems virtually all human beings as mere pawns of the state.

The common mindset of all those determined to seize power in perpetuity, either by force of arms or the ballot box, is a profound contempt for the dignity and sanctity of human life.  This is a philosophical necessity in order to view the bulk of the populace as inferior and therefore servants and wards of the state to be exploited or restrained for political or economic ends.  Over time, this mentality inevitably and rapidly descends into the abyss of malevolence and the indiscriminate taking of life.  The first irreversible step in the evolution of this mindset is unfettered abortion at any stage of gestation or immediately after birth as well as the acceptance and promotion of unrestrained government sponsored euthanasia.

Additionally, over the past 90 years virtually all potential oligarchs or tyrants have utilized the following six political stratagems, that do not require armed conflict, in order to permanently obliterate any opposition.  They were first employed by Adolf Hitler and documented by renowned American Psychoanalyst, Dr. Walter C Langer:

  1. Keep the public in a state of constant turmoil.  Pre-identify favored groups by race, economic status, ideology or religion and through constant repetition by allies in the media and entertainment cabal, establish that any perceived disadvantage within those assemblages is solely the fault of another pre-identified and isolated group, particularly Jews, traditional Christians and the capitalists.
  2. Never concede that there may be some good in your political enemy.  State loudly and often that they are a permanent adversary because they are determined to oppress the favored groups identified in 1) above as well as being racist, avaricious, treasonous etc. (i.e. the worst people on earth).  Thus, abrogation of their free speech privileges, their right to own firearms and to freely assemble is not only acceptable but a necessity.
  3. Never miss an opportunity to repeatedly and loudly blame one’s political enemy for anything that goes wrong regardless of how inane or unreasonable.  Thus, faux crises must be orchestrated as often as possible in order to blame the other side.  Further, any natural disaster or any aggressive action by a foreign adversary must also be attributed to one’s political adversary.
  4. Never acknowledge or divulge that your side is at fault or wrong regardless of the situation or issue.
  5. Never, under any circumstances, leave room for civil discourse regarding alternative societal or governmental policies by proclaiming that those promoting any alternative have a hidden treasonous agenda.  Continually maintain the assertion as being irrefutable that a central government, in the hands of the enlightened, can resolve any issue and make life better.
  6. Finally, always utilize the ultimate tactic in promoting dogma or denigrating one’s opponent: The Big Lie.  People will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if it is repeated frequently enough, people will sooner or later accept it as the truth.  The fabricated dire consequences of so-called climate change; the contrived narrative of Donald Trump colluding with Russia; the myth of rampant white nationalism and the illusion that this is a virulently racist nation are recent examples of this stratagem.

Even the least politically involved Americans can see that over the past two decades, the hierarchy of the American Left and its appendages as well as many elected officials in the Democratic Party have been shamelessly utilizing all these tactics.

Further, this clique, in their disdain for human life is not only exploiting gullible and ill-educated armies of illegal immigrants as pawns in an attempt to create a new and reliable voting bloc and rend the fabric of the nation; they are also unabashedly in favor of unfettered abortion at any stage of gestation, upon birth or shortly thereafter, and have also begun promoting unrestrained euthanasia.

As confirmed by all 24 candidates presently running for the Democratic Party presidential nomination singing out of the same hymn book, this potential oligarchy, in order to assume power in perpetuity, is continuing its attempt to hoodwink the electorate with deceptive and unrealizable utopian promises straight out of the Marxian Socialist playbook.

Hence, the American Left, and its political arm– the Democratic Party– is the ideological and spiritual offspring of the callous authoritarians that ran roughshod throughout the twentieth century.  The American Left may not harbor the murderous and tyrannical urges of many of those despots but their determination to control all the levers of power is no different.  Over the past century, Socialism, regardless of its many names and faces, is a contrived Ponzi scheme utilized by those with either megalomaniacal or ruthless inclinations in order to permanently insert themselves at the helm of a nation’s ruling structure.

During the more than two years of his presidency, Donald Trump has not employed these self-serving tactics, he is unabashedly a promoter of pro-life causes and he has been a champion of liberty and capitalism.  As someone who has firsthand experience with the tyranny of Nazism or National Socialism, I can say with confidence that Donald Trump is the antithesis of a potential despot and that the vast bulk of those who support him are patriots and the polar opposite of Fascist sympathizers.

Because of the unique structure of checks and balances set out in the Constitution, this nation can only function with two major political parties.  One of these, the Democratic Party, as these dreadful debates reinforced, is now controlled by authoritarian oligarchs.  Never in its 243-year history has the United States faced such a stark political contrast or threat to its founding principles.

Unless and until the Democratic Party permanently rids itself of those in the thrall of socialism and afflicted with megalomania or is discarded on the ash heap of history, the American people, and in particular many elected Republicans and the myopic self-serving Never Trump faction in the hierarchy of the conservative movement, must understand that there is no option other than Donald Trump in 2020 and a vibrant combative conservative pro- American or nationalist movement for the foreseeable future.

Source: Where the Democrats are Trying to Take Us

Posted in Collectivism, Deep State, Global Warming/Climate Change, leftist bullying, liberal intolerance/persecution, Marxism, Mind Control, neoliberals, news media, Politics, Socialism, Socialism | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment